KevHead0881 Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 13, 2005 -> 11:36 PM) We are now 1 game over .500 and have 2 games left before the break, we'll either be over or under .500 not at. :finger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Feb 13, 2005 -> 05:10 PM) I've given up on Chandler becoming anywhere near the KG type of player I thought he could become. But I do think he can become a Ben Wallace type of player if he can toughen up and put on some pounds. He's proven that he can be a good rebounder and a dominating shot blocker. If he does nothing but rebound and block shots, thats good enough for me. Yeah, the expectations put on this guy's shoulders at the start of his career proved to be more than he could handle. I, too, thought he could have an offensive game, either as good, or, nearly as good as KG. Turns out, he'll be a defensive force in the NBA...nothing more, nothing less. If he continues to improve under Skiles, I think a Ben Wallace compareson suits him very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 The TWolves have really gone to s***. They sounds like they were just going through the motions... Good to see the Bulls hang above .500 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Feb 13, 2005 -> 05:10 PM) I've given up on Chandler becoming anywhere near the KG type of player I thought he could become. But I do think he can become a Ben Wallace type of player if he can toughen up and put on some pounds. He's proven that he can be a good rebounder and a dominating shot blocker. If he does nothing but rebound and block shots, thats good enough for me. I have been comparing him to wallace for a long time now. If you play him 35 minutes a game cinsistently he would be a force in the league. Not many players have the impact he does in the paint as it is already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Feb 13, 2005 -> 07:28 PM) Yeah, the expectations put on this guy's shoulders at the start of his career proved to be more than he could handle. I, too, thought he could have an offensive game, either as good, or, nearly as good as KG. Turns out, he'll be a defensive force in the NBA...nothing more, nothing less. If he continues to improve under Skiles, I think a Ben Wallace compareson suits him very well. Giving up a former number one, 20-10 ROY to get you can make that happen... You should never trade for a guy the clips drafted... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 13, 2005 -> 09:19 PM) I have been comparing him to wallace for a long time now. If you play him 35 minutes a game cinsistently he would be a force in the league. Not many players have the impact he does in the paint as it is already. If he had better offensive skills and less mental mistakes, he'd get those 35 per... The same goes for Gordon and his defense... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 03:10 AM) If he had better offensive skills and less mental mistakes, he'd get those 35 per... That's a load of crap. Chandler is the last guy on the team that they're drawing up plays for. He averages 5 shot attempts per night. He was never thought of as a long term offensive option. Krause saw the next Rodmanesque defensive freak, and that's all there is to it. Chandler is without a doubt a first team all-defensive caliber player. You don't have to be a freaking NBA scout to see that. Those are the players that you build championship teams around. We have offensive options in Gordon, Deng, Curry, and Hinrich. All that Chandler is supposed to do is be the goaltender. This is not a difficult concept. And these mental mistakes that you speak of....he makes less than just about any other Bull. So who are you crappin'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 He has NO jump shot, which he can get away with a bit... But having absolutely NO post moves whatsoever is unacceptable.. That's what has taken Ben Wallace to that next level: the ablility to have some sort of offensive presence to keep your opponent's defense honest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 05:46 AM) He has NO jump shot, which he can get away with a bit... But having absolutely NO post moves whatsoever is unacceptable.. That's what has taken Ben Wallace to that next level: the ablility to have some sort of offensive presence to keep your opponent's defense honest... Ben is still a terrible offensive player. He can't dribble. He can't shoot. His post moves are weak. Same deal as Tyson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 13, 2005 -> 11:46 PM) He has NO jump shot, which he can get away with a bit... But having absolutely NO post moves whatsoever is unacceptable.. That's what has taken Ben Wallace to that next level: the ablility to have some sort of offensive presence to keep your opponent's defense honest... Haha, no, not at all. Another thing wallace is superior at is free throw shooting right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 12:50 AM) Haha, no, not at all. Another thing wallace is superior at is free throw shooting right? I said SOME SORT of offensive presence...Definitely more than Tyson... What saddens me is the huge strides Amare has made because Tyson could have and should have been something similar to that... Wallace's physique also helps a lot. If Tyson obviously isn't going the next Garnett, why not add a lot more muscle mass and become the defensive center he's capable of being? Skiles isn't playing him for a reason, guys... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 05:56 AM) I said SOME SORT of offensive presence...Definitely more than Tyson... What saddens me is the huge strides Amare has made because Tyson could have and should have been something similar to that... Wallace's physique also helps a lot. If Tyson obviously isn't going the next Garnett, why not add a lot more muscle mass and become the defensive center he's capable of being? Skiles isn't playing him for a reason, guys... To me, if we're talking about defense, Chandler reminds me of David Robinson. He's a big lanky jolly green giant motherf***er who doesn't have the frame to add much bulk. Still though, he has the stuff that defensive legends are made of. If you're a Bulls fan, you should know by now what he brings to the table. That is, if you even take the time to analyze what he can do with his crazy combination of quickness, vertical leaping ability, length, and superior work ethic. The only thing that's holding him back is his back. That's why Skiles goes the conservative route with Chandler....it's no secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 13, 2005 -> 11:56 PM) I said SOME SORT of offensive presence...Definitely more than Tyson... What saddens me is the huge strides Amare has made because Tyson could have and should have been something similar to that... Wallace's physique also helps a lot. If Tyson obviously isn't going the next Garnett, why not add a lot more muscle mass and become the defensive center he's capable of being? Skiles isn't playing him for a reason, guys... 37% of chandler's shots are ''jump'' shots and he makes 27 percent of them. 31% of wallace's shots are ''jump shots and he makes 21 percent of them. 36% of chandler's shots are from ''close'' and he makes 46% of them. 44% of wallace's shots are from ''close'' and he also makes 46% On a whole wallace is shooting .446 from the field and chandler is shooting .478. Chandler is shooting 67% from the free though line. While it is not a great % compared to wallace's 42% it is the greated thing ever. You give chandler ten more minutes per game ( which would be the amount of minutes per game wallace plays). His numbers all around would be just as good if not better. Edited February 14, 2005 by qwerty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Chandler really has improved his jump shot. Its not what I would call good, but you can see it developing as well as his free throw shot, which at times looks half way decent and at other times you see the hitch back in his shot. He needs to improve on his touch around the basket though because he'd get a heck of a lot more three point plays. He is also absolutely god awful with the back to the basket and really looks like he has no idea what a low post move is. Luckily he is a hell of a rebounder, provides great energy, and is an intimidating defender. The guys a definate keeper, especially when you consider he has a great work ethic and attitude. He doesn't deserve anything near a max contract though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 01:33 AM) He doesn't deserve anything near a max contract though. Curry does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 No, but Curry's contract will obviously be higher simply because teams see him as having a dominate offensive game. Personally I think Chandler and Curry are pretty good compliments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 01:42 AM) No, but Curry's contract will obviously be higher simply because teams see him as having a dominate offensive game. Personally I think Chandler and Curry are pretty good compliments. Chandler's defense> curry's offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 02:46 AM) Chandler's defense> curry's offense. No way. Curry's FG% says it all. He has GREAT touch around the basket... I understand that you really like Chandler's energy and defense, but Curry's offense is more valuable. It'll show in their next contracts. Chandler on D just isn't as good as you're making him out to be... A guy like Theo Ratliff plays about a minute more per than Chandler yet averages 2.6 blocks to Tyson's 1.8. He's just not there yet. Until he puts up Rodman-like numbers, which he's very capable of, he won't be fulfilling his potential, considering his height, wingspan, and hype... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.